And failure to act ran the risk of Australian itself eventually finding itself “strategically reliant on the benevolence of an expansionist dictatorship”, it warned. A report published on the website of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and written by Sam Fairall-Lee echoed remarks by US Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson last month, who encouraged Australian counterparts to be more active in countering China’s military expansion in the region. Mr Fairall-Lee wrote: “According to Australia’s chief of navy, Michael Noonan, the recent Indo-Pacific Endeavour deployment demonstrates to our regional partners the fleet’s ‘growing capability’.
READ MORE: Australia plans new base to combat Beijing’s influence
“That may be true, but in maritime Southeast Asia, capability needs to be seen in relative terms, and I’m not sure that the arrival of a couple of Australian ships provides much confidence to countries staring down the People’s Liberation Army Navy, which in raw numbers is now the largest navy on earth.
“Moreover, when Noonan speaks of the deployment sending a ‘strong message’ that Australia is a ‘committed partner’, the obvious question arises: committed to what? Commitment to exercises and partnerships is terrific, but we hold exercises and have a partnership with China too, so what reassurance are we actually giving?
“‘Committed to the region’ is a common cliche, but it’s so vague as to be meaningless.”
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) – consisting of Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Myanmar (Burma), Cambodia, Laos – counted on allies to counter China’s power in the South China Sea, Mr Fairall-Lee said.
He explained that if the US and Australia wanted to build “real credibility” with Southeast Asian nations in an effort to counter China’s power in the South China Sea there was a need to demonstrate “more than just capability while repeating vague platitudes”.
Mr Fairall added: “We need to clearly demonstrate intent and a willingness to take risks to counter China’s aggression.
“The environment has changed and we can’t just do what we’ve done before.”
Joint South China Sea maritime patrols with ASEAN partners were one way of underlining such a commitment, and while ASEAN states have previously regarded joint patrols with the US as unnecessarily inflammatory, the same was not necessarily true for Australia, he claimed.
He added: “Our involvement would be less outwardly provocative than that of the US and more likely to gain support from ASEAN countries.
“Indonesia, for one, has repeatedly raised the possibility with Australia, and been given a quiet ‘no thanks’.
“But joint patrols of the southern reaches of the South China Sea with Indonesia would be a good starting point in clearly signalling our rejection of China’s aggressive actions, while also expanding military-to-military links in an operational environment.
Patrols would need to need to “to confront an extremely complex and sensitive geopolitical and operational environment” and would require “carefully crafted and workable rules of engagement”.
Mr Fairall-Lee said: “These difficulties aren’t to be understated, but they’re also not impossible to resolve.
“Such a move would risk worsening the ‘deep freeze’ in Australia–China relations. But focusing only on the short-term consequences ignores the bigger problem: with all hopes of China becoming a ‘responsible stakeholder’ now dead, the capacity for China to constrain our maritime freedom of movement will only grow as its power grows.
“Without action, at some point we’re likely to find ourselves strategically reliant on the benevolence of an expansionist dictatorship.
“To change the dynamics, we need to help foster a meaningful, US-led collective balance to China’s maritime power within Southeast Asia.
“And the same old flag-waving won’t cut it.”
Speaking in May, Admiral Richardson said: “I think every nation is going to have to assess the situation and their own approach.
“But at some point navies are meant to get under way and be present and provide options to their countries’ leadership.
“How they choose to do that is a matter of their national sovereign approach”.